facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[Care4all]

OK, but it doesn't change my point and as I said I'm not in favor of banning any abortions. I am in favor of social conservatives taking the personal responsibility to convince and provide options on their own. Something they claim to support, other then that which they want government to do for them because they are too lazy. And I still don't think this is the best example of opposing the law.

the law is fine imo, IF IT HAD an exception for medical reasons similar to this woman's case....she was not only put through the grief of knowing she had another baby that was biting the dust, but put through more grief by being made to carry her basically dead child to term....yes, it was just a couple of weeks before she miscarried, but it COULD HAVE BEEN longer and even more painful to her and her husband.

So it's OK with you if government using the power of government guns makes the choice to force a woman to carry a baby to term rather then put the burden on those who think she should carry the baby take the personal responsibility to convince her it's moral and has options? But it's actually as long as if the doctor justifies it's medically necessary, she can then legally ignore the law? Two questions:

1) Isn't your system just setting up for women to find the doctor who will find a justification for it rather then the woman choosing what to do with her body and her baby?

2) You do realize I am not defending that the woman shouldn't have a choice, I'm objecting to government making it for her or the doctor justifying it and I just don't think since the baby was going to die this is the best example of why it's a bad law?

I think that the woman faced with a medical situation such as this woman's, should have the choice on what to do with her own medical situation.

I think late term abortions, where there is a viable foetus, can be limited through legislation, as per Roe v wade, as long as there is an exception for medical reasons, IF THE STATE chooses to do such.....

All the WHAT IFS, on whether a woman can weasel her way through the system to get one, when there is no medical problems is so small....and should NOT outway the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy of a non viable late term fetus.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's a good thing all these posters know about these situations better than doctors do.

I also never understand why people try to justify one horrible thing by bringing up something else they deem horrible.

"My kid shouldn't go to jail for rape because your kid murdered someone." Same concept, same level of insanity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Danielle Deaver was about 22 weeks into her pregnancy when doctors told her she wouldn't be able to carry to term and her child would die soon after birth. Then to her surprise, she learned doctors couldn't end her non-viable pregnancy because of a new Nebraska law barring late-term abortions.

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

You -do- know that this is a direct result of Roe v Wade, right?

 

[gekaap]

You -do- know that this is a direct result of Roe v Wade, right?

How so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You -do- know that this is a direct result of Roe v Wade, right?

How so?

Roe v Wade allows states to create laws just like this.

 

[Care4all]

Danielle Deaver was about 22 weeks into her pregnancy when doctors told her she wouldn't be able to carry to term and her child would die soon after birth. Then to her surprise, she learned doctors couldn't end her non-viable pregnancy because of a new Nebraska law barring late-term abortions.

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

You -do- know that this is a direct result of Roe v Wade, right?

medical exceptions, the health of the mother,as an exception.... has been in several scotus decisions afterwards....

roe v wade does not give permission to states to IGNORE the woman's rights after viability, just that the viability of the fetus can be weighed against the woman's privacy rights, is my understanding of it, but hey! i am not a lawyer!

 

[gekaap]

Roe v Wade allows states to create laws just like this.

That makes for a very vague, and hardly direct, causal theory. The state constitution allows the state to make laws like this. Should we say it's a direct result of the constitution of the state?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Roe v Wade allows states to create laws just like this.

That makes for a very vague, and hardly direct, causal theory. The state constitution allows the state to make laws like this. Should we say it's a direct result of the constitution of the state?

Point is - live by Roe, die by Roe.

 

[gekaap]

Point is - live by Roe, die by Roe.

And who said they are "living by Roe"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Point is - live by Roe, die by Roe.

And who said they are "living by Roe"?

Roe v Wade is the legal cornerstone for the entire pro-abortion crowd - anyone supporting abortion relies on Roe.

 

[AllieBaba]

What a pukey thread.

Blech.

And nice OP, lol. What a load of shit.

 

[gekaap]

Roe v Wade is the legal cornerstone for the entire pro-abortion crowd - anyone supporting abortion relies on Roe.

Really? I support abortion rights because I don't think the government has any business legislating a person's medical decisions based on religious beliefs. I could give a care less what Roe v. Wade says.

Your argument also ignores the fact that there are a great many other laws and legal issues that contribute to the whole thing besides Roe v. Wade.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What a pukey thread.

Blech.

And nice OP, lol. What a load of shit.

aka "it's not what I want to hear"

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's complete unmitigated BS. The article is a piece of shit and the verification is non-existent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Roe v Wade is the legal cornerstone for the entire pro-abortion crowd - anyone supporting abortion relies on Roe.

Really? I support abortion rights because I don't think the government has any business legislating a person's medical decisions based on religious beliefs. I could give a care less what Roe v. Wade says.

Aside from the fact that you cannot show that the NE law is based on religion...
This doesnt change the fact that Roe is the legal cornerstone for the pro-abortion crowd, and that any legal argument made to that effect - including yours, regardless if you know it or not - flows from it.

Your argument also ignores the fact that there are a great many other laws and legal issues that contribute to the whole thing besides Roe v. Wade.

Irrelevant. Roe allows this. If you disagree that a state should have this power, then you disagree with Roe.

 

[JBeukema]

OKay, I've only read the thread title so far and I have one response

does the Op know what fascism is, or that just what we're calling anything we don't like now?

 

[JBeukema]

so she couldnt drive out of state?

Should she have to?

What if every State passes the same law?

 

[JBeukema]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

from the story:

Danielle Deaver was about 22 weeks into her pregnancy when doctors told her she wouldn't be able to carry to term and her child would die soon after birth.

 

[JBeukema]

This thread is a perfect example of why i find the left disgusting at times.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, it's complete unmitigated BS. The article is a piece of shit and the verification is non-existent.

It's more than one article, it must be a media-wide conspiracy.